Our governing authorities rightly look to protect women from
sexual predators. Conversely, the
culture encourages sexual an attitude of sexual freedom. Popular wisdom holds that the easy access to birth
control and abortion liberates females to explore sexuality as partners with
men.

Ms. Young’s article suggests that liberation has muddied the
already murky waters of sexual relations; making it ever trickier to navigate
the hazardous channels of love, sex and romance.

Let’s look back at how are arrived here and what roles state
and culture played.

Beginning in the 19th Century, Sigmund Freud taught
that society’s ills are squarely rooted in the repressive Victorian sexual
attitudes.

That may be so said Margaret
Sanger, but what about us women? We
can’t let loose without getting pregnant?
We need birth control if we are to have sexual equality and enjoy the
therapeutic benefits of a fulfilling sex life.

Soon the churches fell in line. At the 1930 Lambeth conference the Anglican Church
became the first major confession to get on board with birth control and in
front of the sexual revolution. Come the
Sixties and the Pill and the rest virginity was no longer an option.

Now all of this is fine with us libertarians so far. We really don’t care who hooks up with whom
so long as it is between consenting adults and they assume responsibility for
any adverse outcomes. Yet, once again
democracy rears its ugly head.

Over two centuries ago in his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith observed that there exist separate
moral stands for the well-to-do versus the hoi polloi because, let’s face it,
they could afford to be bad:

“In every civilized
society, in every society where the distinction of ranks has once been
completely established, there have been always two different schemes or systems
of morality current at the same time; of which the one may be called the strict
or austere; the other the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system. The
former is generally admired and revered by the common people; the latter is
commonly more esteemed and adopted by what are called the people of fashion.”

In the modern age, we workaday folks live vicariously
through Hollywood celebrities, pop stars and jet setters who leap from bed to
bed and from marriage to marriage because they can write big checks when the
fit hits the Shan.

“How can this be fair?” cry the pleaders for the poor and
oppressed? Why are the wealthy more entitled to a good time in the sack than
us? Isn’t that a basic right? Margaret Sanger dragged class conflict into
the already hazardous battle of the sexes, when she wrote about the “knowledge of birth control, so carefully
guarded and so secretly practiced by the women of the wealthy class -- and so
tenaciously withheld from the working women”. A central argument in the pro-legal abortion
position is that rich women can always “go away” to have their problem “taken
care of” safely while the poor girls fall prey to back alley butchers.

In no time, sexual fulfillment became a right with birth
control and abortion becoming entitlements.
With this, men and women arrived at equality in the bedroom, able to
indulge risk-free pleasure that was often taxpayer subsidized.

We should now be a socialist dreamland of equality with men
and women essentially neutered and turned into indiscriminant pleasure seeking
bio-droids. With the playing field
leveled by legislation and litigation, it should be open season for guys and
gals to find regret free trysts.

However, something has gone wrong. Despite the best efforts of gender levelers
there are still differences in how the sexes survey the sexual battlefield. Vive la difference!

Margaret Sanger herself saw this when she wrote, “There is
no doubt that the natural aim of the sexual impulse is the sexual act, yet when
the impulse is strongest and followed by the sexual act without love or any of
the relative instincts which go to make up love, the relations are invariably
followed by a feeling of disgust.”

She concludes, “Respect for each other and for one's self is
a primary essential to this intimate relation.”

What is happening and what is documented by Cathy Young’s Reason article, is that the breaking
down of cultural and biological barriers to sexual gratification often results
in impersonal hook-ups that engender that “feeling of disgust” and loss of self
respect and resentment of the casual partner.
In other words, buyer’s remorse.

One is tempted to say caveat
emptor, live and learn. However the
backlash now often carries considerable penalties for men who mistakenly
believed that they equal participants in a mutually agreeable shag fest.

The lessons for libertarians here are that, yes, we endorse
equality before the law and strong protections against sexual predators. But let us also remember that the strength of
a free society lies in diversity, including some hardwired differences between
the sexes no matter how much we would like to deny them.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Doug Gansler wonders
aloud why a state that has, in his estimation, “literally the smartest people
in the country” is having such problems getting ACA enrollment right.

Here is what Gansler doesn’t get. It doesn’t matter how many smart people there
are in Maryland. Any centrally market
disruption is bound to fail. No one can
doubt that there were plenty of smart people in Soviet Union or in the entire
Eastern Block, yet conditions were miserable, there was no prosperity.

However, just beyond the Wall, West Germany and
Western Europe experience a spectacular post World War II recovery.

Ditto with the PRC.
Life there was fairly primitive, while free Hong Kong was setting the
business world on fire.

Centrally planned systems are doomed to failure. That’s because no individual or group of individuals
can ever possess the knowledge that resides with thousands or millions of
freely acting producers, consumers and middlemen. F. A. Hayek demonstrates that order in a
society emerges spontaneously from countless numbers of people making even more
countless decisions based upon their estimate of what best suites their particular
needs. Those decisions that are
successful get repeated and emulated while those that fail are discarded. This
how a healthy society evolves adapts and grows without guidance from some all
powerful planner.

So, back to Obamacare and back to Maryland. The Dems can argue all that they want who is
to blame for the ACA’s flubbed execution and who is most competent to handle
it. It is a losing proposition from the
get-go no matter who is in charge because it is impossible for a handful of
politicians and technocrats to guess what is most right and satisfactory for
each and every citizen. The longer that
is takes them to realize this, the crabbier everyone in Maryland will be.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

News of fast
food labor strikes continues pouring in.
Minimum wage workers are looking to increase their hourly wage to $15,
which they contend to be a “just” living wage.
In my own Soprano State of New
Jersey, the voters have
recently approved a state constitutional amendment to increase the minimum
wage by a buck and to mandate annual cost-of-living increases.

Please indulge me in a little thought exercise.

Let’s say that you go down to you local burger joint to ask
for a job. The boss tells you that he can pay $7 but say that you want $15. He says “too bad, take it or leave it”. So you take it. However you also take an additional $8 from
the cash register for every hour that you worked in order to get up the $15 per
hour that you feel you deserve.

Most people would call that stealing. If most of your coworkers did it, the burger
joint might soon be out of business and you would need to find a new gig.

Now let’s consider another scenario. As before, you apply for the job, you ask for
$15 and the boss offers $7. This time
you pull a gun on the boss and tell him that it will be $15. End of discussion. You also make sure that you bring your gun
with you on payday to ensure that you are getting your $15 per hour.

If nothing else, this method is more honest and straightforward
than stealing from the register. At
least the boss knows where his money is going.
Still, most people would still call it a crime.

Now let’s run through this one more time.

You and your fellow workers convince your elected
representatives that you really deserve $15 an hour, not $7. So then the State sends your boss a note informing
him that he will be giving you a nice raise.
The letter also advises your boss that he must do so under the penalty
of law. “Penalty of law” is a polite way
of saying that guys with guns will come by to ensure compliance “or else”.

Question: how is having the hired guns of government to
extort an extra $8 per hour out of your boss any more moral or any less of a
crime than doing it yourself?

I now turn the thought exercise over to you, the reader, to
complete.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Friday, November 29, 2013

As believing Catholic I accept my Church’s teaching as
regards Papal infallibly. Specifically,
the Church hold that papal pronouncements are inerrant on matters of faith and
doctrine if and only when he speaks ex
cathedra – and this has happened only twice. Since infallibility is limited to Church
doctrine, the Pope is neither infallible nor or even within his competency when
commenting on other topics. To be sure
Catholics do look to Rome for expertise on medical treatment, automotive
maintenance, information architecture or much outside of the moral or spiritual
realm.

The Pontiff may be our spiritual leader par excellence but he is literally no rocket scientist, nor should
we expect him to be. After all, our
first Pope, St. Peter, has humble fisherman from a backwater town. Although Peter was tutored at Christ’s feet
on matters of divine import, it is safe say that he knew little to nothing
about the Egyptian mathematics, Greek astronomy or Roman engineering of his day.

All of this is preface my alarm and frustration when
churchmen, and the Holy Father in particular, conflate moral teaching with
wishful economic thinking. Just the
other day, Pope
Francis decried “trickle-down” economics .
Sadly, the Pontiff adopted the rhetoric of Marxism of class warfare
saying, “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival
of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless.” He ignored the facts
of material progress asserting that “some people continue to defend
trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free
market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and
inclusiveness in the world.” Like many on the Left, he confuses income
inequality with poverty by assuming the upper crust is taking a larger slice of
a static sized pie. And, one would
expect, he roots his critique in Scripture.

While it is a morally compelling argument is factually and
conceptually off base. Thus the
prescriptions that might flow from such ill-founded rage could be harmful and
destructive rather than curative and productive.

The Biblical perspective is based should be understood in
the context of the ancient world. In
that day the “rich” were primarily of aristocratic or warrior class. These powerful elite employed the violence or
the threat of violence to extract material comfort from the peasantry and the
artisans, leaving little behind for those who produced the economic staples of
life. In his 1974 book, The
Socialist Phenomenon, Soviet dissident, Igor Shafarevich, traces the
evolution of a novel form of social structure in the ancient Near East, the
state. This new institution united “human
masses on an unprecedented scale and the subjugation of these masses to the
will of a central power. The "technology of power" and not the
"technology of production" was the foundation upon which the new type
of society was based. “

As we can see, the technologies of mass wealth creation had yet
to be created. However those select few who
had mastered the techniques weapons production and deployment subjugated the defenseless
many. Thus we can see how in ancient
times the “rich” truly were a class that unjustly extracted their riches from
the subjugated masses. Thus it is understandable
how Jesus and biblical prophets inveighed against “the rich”, and their
oppression of the “poor” of their day.

However an economic, scientific and social revolution began
in the 17th century that would ignite wealth creation and forever
alter the concepts of rich and poor. This century witnessed the advent of three earthshaking
intellectual innovations in England. These
are classical liberalism, free market economics and Newtonian mechanics.

The liberalism of John Locke would follow the Christian
notion of human equality before God and the law to its logical conclusion. According
to Locke’s logic King and commoner, price and pauper stood as equals before the
Lord and no man could rightly claim to be born with a right to power over
others. This philosophy would take root
in American and come to full fruition in the Declaration of Independence and
other founding documents of the American experiment.

The economic insights of Adam Smith expose the mercantile economic
fallacies of the day. Mercantilism was
the crony capitalism of its time whereby, governments intervened in commercial
activity to outcomes to the benefit of a well connected few. Smith
demonstrated how free and unfettered markets deliver superior outcomes for all
strata of society, enriching all, impoverishing none.

The combination of new found personal liberty, free markets
and fueled an unprecedented economic production. Nearly
90% all wealth creation that has occurred over the past two millennia has occurred
over the past two hundred years as a result of capitalist revolution that was
launched by the aforementioned English gentlemen. The following illustrates the progression:

In the natural state, wealth, that collection of material
goods that sustains life and makes it livable, does not exist. In the natural state, human beings eke out a tenuous
hunter-gatherer existence that is completely vulnerable to the vagaries of
nature. The natural state is a state of
poverty. To overcome poverty, wealth
must be created, and more of it is being created and at a faster rate than
ever.

The question that the Vicar of Rome might pose is whether
this new found wealth is finding its way to the masses or is simply accumulating
in the hands of select few?

Certainly corporate titans, Wall Street tycoons, tech
innovators, show biz magnates, and top tier entertainers and athletes are racking
up outlandish fortunes. That cannot be
denied. However it is also true that
world poverty is falling at unprecedented rates.

According to a 2010 World Bank report, the number of people
living in “extreme poverty” which is defined a $1.25 or less per day has fallen to
22% of the developing world’s population – or 1.29 billion people from 43%
in 1990 and 52% in 1981.That’s
decline of nearly 58% in less than 30 years.

Granted, $1.25 is not much but other indicators of life
quality have improved, According the
organization, HumanProgress many major
indicators of material improvement speak to improved living conditions throughout
the world including increased life expectancy, decreased infant mortality and increases
in things like paved roads and access to healthcare and communications
technology.

This progress is attributable to the global spread of
economic and political freedoms. Even Bono
has come to realize that only free enterprise capitalism will lift Africa out
its economic woes. And Sting is correct
when he sings that “there is no political solution to our troubled evolution”. That
is because the political solution is the way of the state, the way of coercion
and violence.

Murray Rothbard succinctly defines the State as “that
organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of
force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only
organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution
or payment for services rendered but by coercion."

As such, the State or State sponsored measure will never
lift the human race out of misery because to alleviate poverty wealth must be
created. However, the State produces
nothing. It only steals and
redistributes the hard earned fruits of others’ risk, investment and labor.

The German sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer, clearly
enunciates how the working world earns its keep versus how the State supports
itself. In his book, The State” Oppenheimer observes:

“There are two fundamentally opposed means
whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means
for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the
forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I propose in the following
discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own
labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of
need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called
the “political means“. . . . The State is an organization of the political
means. No State, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has
created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which
objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery.”

So when clerics such as the Pope decry
capitalism and call for State intervention, they are calling for theft, for
robbery, no matter how well intentioned they may be. . No society that is rooted in theft can prosper.

When they employ the language of class struggle,
they are falling prey to utopian illusion of state socialism. The world’s greatest socialist endeavors Nazi
Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and Cuba have killed, tortured and imprisoned
millions while failing to improve the lot of the masses as capitalism clearly
has done.

When the Pope speaks of a misplaced “trust in the goodness
of those wielding economic power” he misses the mark
entirely. Over two centuries ago, Adam
Smith taught us that it is not good intentions that advance civilization's prosperity. Prosperity, the wealth of nations, and of the
world, advances because of the aggregate transactions of individuals, each
acting in his or her enlightened self interest.

“It is not from the benevolence (kindness) of the butcher,
the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest.” “by
directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest
value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases,
led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” The unforeseen consequence of free and
voluntary production and trade is the material advancement of the nation and
the human community.

Yes, my Pope is infallible in the realm of spiritual
doctrine. The Church is dead on correct
its defense of life and religious liberty.
The Pope is also correct in calling out us on rampant consumerism and
reminding us of our obligation to ease the lot of the poor and suffering. He is on solid ground when he calls on us to
withhold judgment upon those whose lifestyles depart from Christian norms. After all, judgment is the Lord’s alone.

However, Popes can err in the area of
providential judgment. St. Paul, himself,
confronted the first Pope, Peter in Antioch.
Paul wrote in Galatians that “I opposed him to his face because he
clearly was wrong” about his treatment of the Gentiles. So too is our Pontiff dangerously mistaken
when he adorns himself in the mantle Marxism in his quest to help the poor.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Recently a wave of seemingly bad publicity for America’s
drone war has spilled out into the media.
This includes a quote in the new book Double Down: Game Change 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann
in which President Obama boasts to aids that he is “really
good at killing people.” In another
story, it seems that the Pakistanis are miffed that the U.S. offing of Taliban
bigwig, Hakimullah Mehsud has screwed up recent peace negotiations and made a
hero out of a thug who heretofore
regarded as a bad guy.

However bad this may appear on the surface, one must view
this apparently adverse publicity through the lens of the ‘70s recording
impresario, Neil Bogart who famously observed that “Good press is good
press. Bad press is good press. No press is bad press.”

In reality, this tide of ink is nothing more than part of
elaborate and sophisticated PR campaign that will get people talking about
drones in advance of this season’s hottest video game release: EA sports Obama Drone Strike 2013. The game is set for release on Black Friday,
November 29 just in time for the Christmas season.

In this hyper-realistic role playing game you assume the
duties of our Commander in Chief who is also the fist Nobel Peace Prize winner to
occupy the White House. While sitting in
the seat of power you will:

·Receive intelligence briefings and pick among alternative targets – some real,
some bogus

· Order the strike

·Remotely navigate the drone

·Identify the target

·Terminate with extreme prejudice

Scoring is as follows:

·100 points for every confirmed “high profile” terrorist
killed

·One additional point for every confirmed low
level operative that is confirmed dead

·Five points are deducted for every collateral
civilian that is terminated

·Ten points are deducted for every child that you
take out

Lesser point totals are earned or deducted for those who are
merely maimed but not killed.

The scoring scale is roughly in keeping with the odds of successfully delivering
a high profile prize and inflicting collateral damage.

Players who chose to play the interactive, multiplayer
online version will compete to win the honor of conducting an actual drone
strike alongside of the POTUS himself in the Oval Office. The winner and our Nobel Laureate President will
undertake the attack live on national TV during halftime of the 2014 Super Bowl
on February 2.

The halftime target will be selected the week prior during
the Pro Bowl via a nationwide cell phone poll. The selection show will hosted
by Ryan Seacrest, John Stewart, General Colin Powell and Paris Hilton.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Since at least World War II, the health insurance industry
has been the beneficiary of federal government support. This handy PBS chart explains
how “wage and price controls (were) placed
on American employers. To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health
benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system in place today.”

By making health insurance premiums tax deductable to employers
but not to individuals, companies were incentivized to provide this perceived
high-value benefit to workers that the employer was able to attain at a steep
discount. Thus the health insurance
industry prospered as the federal tax code motivated more employers to offer this
benefit in lieu of higher cash wages.

By taking individual consumers out of the insurance market
and by states severely regulating entry into the health insurance industry, the
state insurance markets turned into oligopolies, or cartels. Employers and workers were offered an abbreviated
assortment of suppliers, plans and prices.

As with higher education, housing , mortgages, agriculture, defense
contracting or any other industry that government begins to control, the prices
for healthcare and health insurance escalated as competitive market forces were
suppressed.

Harry
Browne, the former Libertarian presidential candidate observed that "Government
is good at only one thing. It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch,
and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you couldn't walk.”’ And so it goes with healthcare. Government launched an inflationary spiral
that it blamed on free markets and then claimed that it had to fix with added
laws and regulation.

Of course, free markets have never been allowed to work in
the U.S. healthcare market for well over half a century. Thus the Affordable Care Act became law to
add layers of complexity to the mess that government had already created.

The crony capitalist friends of our elected representatives were
licking their chops. This new law would
force millions to buy their products and force millions more to pay higher
premiums. Laggards who refused to
participate would be punished just like draft dodgers and tax evaders.

To paraphrase Allen Iverson, “We’re talkin’ about profits
here”. No going out of
business. Not shutting down. “We’re talkin’ about profits”. Windfall profits, that Wall Street has been
promised.

If profits fall short, there is a way to address that. Cut executive bonuses and perks. Cut staff.
Reduce pay. Take furloughs.

What Congress cannot allow happen is to allow the big
insurers and their Wall Street backs to make their numbers on the backs of
regular Americans who are struggling to enroll in a crappy, dysfunctional and overpriced
health insurance sinkhole.

Call your representatives and make sure that they resist the
onslaught of high pressure, big money lobbyists. Call them today!

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Friday, October 18, 2013

As a young
boy I delivered newspapers to the daily subscribers in my neighborhood.I quickly learned that if I failed to deliver
the paper on any given day, that my customers would deduct the day’s cost from
their weekly remittance.

Likewise,
Americans who subscribe to a TV delivery service, be it cable, satellite or
FIOS understand that when their service is disrupted for any significant
portion of time, that they deduct a pro-rated portion of the fee from their monthly
bill to reflect the term of the outage.

So it is
with our federal government. They are
nothing if not fair, understanding, forgiving and customer friendly. Therefore, the government’s revenue
collection arm, the Internal Revenue Service will soon be making available Form
666 – FU , the Federal Services Disruption Reimbursement Form.

Bloggers
such as myself received an advance draft copy of this form in order to help
publicize this tax saving opportunity to our readers.

Long story
short – Uncle Sam wants to make good the loss of service that its valued
customers (i.e. federal taxpayers) suffered during the recent 16 day government
shutdown.

The math is
simple and straight forward. You just:

1.Take your total 2013 tax liability as
reported on your 1040 Form

2.Divide the above by 365 to determine
your daily liability

3.Multiply Line 2 by .17 (or 17%) to
reflect the portion of government services lost each day

4.Multiply Line 3 by 16 to reflect the
total days of the shutdown to determine the rebate that is due to you.

An example
follows. In this hypothetical case, Mr.
Ira B Sheeple owed $10,000 in Federal Income Taxes. That computes to $27 per day. However, Mr. Sheeple was deprived of 17% of
the daily federal services that he was accustomed to receiving – this comes to
$4.66 per day. He was deprived of said
services for a total of 17 days, which means that he is eligible for a $74.52
rebate on his 2013 taxes.

There is one
catch however; the IRS will not be mailing these forms out to all
taxpayers. To receive one you must call
your local IRS office and request a copy Form 666 – FU. If the IRS clerk with whom you speak with feigns ignorance, I suggest that
you call your elected federal representatives as well as the White House and
insist on receiving a copy. I further
recommend that you send a copy the attached example to help expedite the
process.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Are you are also aware the SCOTUS has determined that your
police force is under no obligation to protect you?

Both are true facts. According to Wikipedia only Philadelphia had
police force during the colonial era. The
Philadelphia officers were positioned in watch boxes stationed throughout the
city. In the 1800’s other Eastern cities
began to follow suit – Richmond (1807), Boston (1838) and New York (1845). Wikipedia points out that, “After the civil war, policing became more
para-military in character, with the increased use of uniforms and military
ranks. Before this, sheriff's offices had been non-uniformed organizations
without a para-military hierarchy.”

Prior to that, laws were enforced by elected Sheriffs who
called upon local militias when extra muscle was required. Militias in the U.S. were generally
understood to be voluntary organizations of local citizens who banded together for
the common defense. Militia’s were so
vitally important that they were enshrined as an essential American institution
in the Second Amendment: “A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed." In the
West, local Sheriffs also deputized the armed local citizens as the need arose.

Like most other things, government overtook and
professionalized law enforcement. Has it
made America any safer? I think not and
for the following reasons:

1.The arming of professional police has coincided with
vigorous government efforts to disarm its citizens. The rationale being that an armed citizenry
was no longer necessary as law enforcement professionals were sufficient to
protect us.

2.However, experience over time has shown that
Americans often need protection from the police. So numerous are the cases police brutality,
corruption and rogue unconstitutional behavior that the “protected” often
become the persecuted.

3.The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that that local
police are under no
obligation to protect individuals.

4.Even if the police were entirely virtuous and
were constitutionally obliged to protect us, prevailing economic conditions are
such that many cities can no longer afford effective police protection. In Detroit, it now takes police over an hour
to respond to a call. In that time, an efficient
criminal could rob, rape, murder and bury his victim before the cops
arrived. Where’s the protection?

So why am I picking on the cops? I'm really not.

Earlier this week, the Trenton political gadfly, Daryl
Brooks was attacked for no good reason by local hoods. When I spoke with him on the morning
afterward, Daryl mused about how likely these thugs would have been to tangle
with him if they feared that he might be armed.

He’s right. Every New
Jerseyan, every American deserves to able to protect themselves. It is a fundamental human right.

Sure there are plenty of brave, honest and dedicated men in
blue who will do whatever it takes to protect and serve their communities. But it is simply impossible for them to look
after our personal well being. They are
not body guards.

It is time that New Jersey lawmakers reconcile themselves to
the Founders’ wisdom that an armed citizenry is the best defense alien
invaders, common criminals and the incursions of a repressive government.

Subscribe to the 2 Percenter blog by going to http://feedage.com and entering 2percentpov into the Search box on top -choose your favorite reader.